Examples of Behavior Change

Examples of Behavior Change P. Wesley Schultz California State University

Social Psychology

Social Psychology • Person dropping litter

Social Psychology

Social Psychology • Person littering

Social Psychology Source: Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce litter in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1015-1026.

Normative Social Influence Social norms--an individual’s beliefs about the common and accepted behavior in a specific situation. 1. Formed through social interaction 2. Powerful influence on behavior 3. Most powerful in novel situations 4. Types of norms (injunctive and descriptive)

The info here is meant to be shocking, but sets a social norm instead.

Applying Social Norms--Curbside recycling

Applying the Theory • Curbside recycling • Mandated by most cities in order to meet 50% diversion requirements set by State. • Field experiment with 600 households for 8 weeks • 3 groups: • 1. Information only 2. No treatment control, 3. Descriptive normative feedback (informing what neighbors are doing) • Baseline (4 weeks), intervention (4 weeks), follow-up (4 weeks)

Normative-based interventions NormativeFeedback InformationOnly No Treatment(control) Change from baseline to follow-up for the normative feedback condition is significant (p<.05), and corresponds to a 19% increase in recycling rates! Source: Schultz, P. W. (1999). Changing behavior with normative feedback interventions: A field experiment of curbside recycling. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 21, 25-36

Applying the Theory #2-- Household energy conservation • Energy conservation--studies funded by Hewlett Foundation following the 2000 “energy crisis” • How to promote conservation? Money? Information? • Needed alternative • Survey of Californians showed self-interest, environmental, social responsibility main reasons identified for conservation • Sample: 1207 households in San Marcos • Experimental conditions/treatments: One of the following: 1.Descriptive norms, 2. Information, 3. Environmental, 4. Financial, 5. Social responsibility • Delivered on doorhangers to households for 4 consecutive weeks • Door-to-door interviews with household residents, meter readings of electricity consumption

Applying the Theory--Household energy conservation Interesting sidenote – When asked what would motivate participants to save energy, they ranked environment or social responsibility at the top. Not true, as you will see. They self report incorrectly. Note: These findings are based on a thesis by Jessica Nolan, with assistance from a team of CSUSM students, including: Matt Dorlaque, Dulce Contreras, Veronica Bresiño, Monica Tinajera, Nigel Hartfield, Leezel Nazareno, Ron Tilos and Christina Wade.

Results:Average daily household energy consumption during the intervention Results based on an ANCOVA using baseline consumption as a covariate.Pairwise comparisons show descriptive norms to be significantly lower than all other conditions.

Results:Q: “How much did the information on these doorhangers motivate you to conserve energy?1 (not at all) to 4 (extremely) Results based on oneway ANOVA.Pairwise comparisons show descriptive norms to be significantly lower than environmental and social responsibility.

Field Implementation at a local Beach Resort Note: My appreciation to the team of CSUSM students who worked on this experiment: Azar Khazian, Michelle Hynan, Joy Francisco, Christine Jarvis, and Jenny Tabanico.

Old Message: This seems like a message that would solicit the desired result. That is because we are judging based on what WE would do. In the following experiment updated notes were left establishing social norms.

Different Rooms

Social Norm Messages

Intervention Implementation • Study focused on 132 condo units (separate studies of hotel) • Randomly assigned rooms to experimental or control • Total of 978 guest “stays” were analyzed • Number of towels taken from the room (continuous up to 4)

ResultsNumber of towels taken out of the room on the first towel replacement day. F(1,976)=10.74; p<.001). A 21% reduction in the number of towels used!

Normative Social Influence • Our Results: • Can cause behavior • Not perceived as motivational • Apply to both private and public behavior • Problems in Application • Can serve as an anchor for folks already doing the behavior • Implemented incorrectly (awareness campaigns)

Normative Social Influence -Buoys and Anchors • Participants: 290 households with visible utility meters • Distributed individual feedback and normative feedback to households for two consecutive weeks • Conditions: • Usage level (above or below neighborhood average), and • Emoticon (positive or negative )

Normative Social Influence - Results High Consumers 

Normative Social Influence - Results High Consumers  Note the emoticon and how effective it is for high consumers.

Normative Social Influence - Results Low Consumers 

Normative Social Influence - Results Low Consumers  Note how the low consumers increased their usage because they were below the social norm. Only the emoticon achieved the desired result.

Boomerang effects - Petrified Forest Experiments • Petrified Forest National Park • “Your heritage is being vandalized every day by theft losses of petrified wood of 14 tons a year, mostly a small piece at a time” • Alternative approach to focus on the injunctive norm against theft

Boomerang effects - High Descriptive Norm Establishes a negative norm Source: Cialdini et al. (under review). Activating and aligning social norms for persuasive impact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Boomerang effects Establishes a positive norm - Low Descriptive Norm

Even though a negative message, effective because the image is a nerdy tourist that nobody wants to be like (norm). Boomerang effects - Injunctive Norm

Results • Percentage of marked petrified wood stolen over a 5-week period Negative norm Positive norm Nerdy tourist

Examples of Behavior Change